Pi isn’t a fraction (in the sense of a rational fraction, an algebraic fraction where the numerator and denominator are both polynomials, like a ratio of 2 integers) – it’s an irrational number, i.e. a number with no fractional form; as opposed to rational numbers, which are defined as being able to be expressed as a fraction. Furthermore, π is a transcendental number, meaning it’s never a solution to f(x) = 0, where f(x) is a non-zero finite-degree polynomial expression with rational coefficients. That’s like, literally part of the definition. They cannot be compared to rational numbers like fractions.

Every rational number (and therefore every fraction) can be expressed using either repeating decimals or terminating decimals. Contrastly, irrational numbers only have decimal expansions which are both non-repeating and non-terminating.

Since |r|<1 → ∑[n=1, ∞] arⁿ = ar/(1-r), and 0.999... is equivalent to that sum with a = 9 and r = 1/10 (visually, 0.999... = 9(0.1) + 9(0.01) + 9(0.001) + ...), it’s easy to see after plugging in, 0.999... = ∑[n=1, ∞] 9(1/10)ⁿ = 9(1/10) / (1 - 1/10) = 0.9/0.9 = 1). This was a proof present in Euler’s Elements of Algebra.

🤝 Single gay guys with conservative parents

Never trust a default username

[adjective] [noun] [3-4 digits] is always a sign of bad news, on social media and Xbox Live

Dubai’s poverty rate is 20% and a notable fraction of the population (1.5%) is slaves from central/south Asia who got their passports taken away from them, and median salary is USD$4300 (a single person’s monthly expenses are estimated to average USD$1000 excluding rent). I can’t call them a wealthy country when their citizens are far from it.

west virginia, mississippi, alabama, and louisiana are completely irredeemable, there is no reason to live there. probably idaho and now florida and texas too

Much of the obsession internet people have over ““privacy”” is just a feel-good-about-themselves thing, rather than actually protecting themselves from their data being collected and used. If you’re posting on the internet, yes that includes Lemmy, there’s almost no doubt that any government and world-destroying corporation would have easy access to everything about you in an instant, even if you go out of your way to try to use services “focused on privacy”. You aren’t protecting yourself from anything by not using Google/Microsoft/etc. products.

There is no “chipping away bit-by-bit” when it comes to this, it’s pretty much meaningless unless you’re nearly completely off the grid, to the point where you don’t even use modern technology. The worst you’re gonna do otherwise is fuck up targetted ads, but that’s not very hard to do considering Google apparently thought I was a pregnant woman looking for leather boots and beauty products when I still had ads on YouTube.

I wish people would admit it’s really not about their privacy. Say it’s because FOSS services are better (because they are), say it’s so you don’t get spam from shitty sites you gave your email to, say it’s so you can fit in in your niche online communities, whatever. But 99.99% of people in “privacy” communities haven’t even put a dent in the data being collected from them by large entities, hell most people in these communities think VPNs will protect them from anything at all other than their parents or boss not noticing them being on porn sites (VPNs can help with privacy, but only under specific conditions that most people aren’t meeting)…

the iranians revolted… into another dictatorship…

and the french revolution ended swell! wait

what about the cuban revolution? oh god damn it

lol i’m just kidding, i can think of a few. the italian civil war and the libyan civil war, and technically the russian revolution and german revolution but i guess it helps when the government you’re fighting against is getting brutally beaten in a war against other countries. but i can’t say all of those ended in an extremely democratic system

I want my fucking foreskin back

Doom music starts playing

i hate seeing OOP and always immediately thinking “object oriented programming”

But, there are patterns to the language and using a soft “g” sound doesn’t follow those patterns, so it’s objectively a less correct pronunciation.

Who makes these mystical “rules” that English surely follows? And who says the patterns you see are objectively more correct, there are a ton of other words with “g”/“gi” that pronounce it with a /dʒ/, you have to do some real mental gymnastics to justify one of them being more correct. There is a point where you have to paint a massively arbitrary line to which patterns are more “correct”, it is a completely subjective matter.

Who cares about that guy?

He’s the only one that can be considered an authority on how the word is pronounced LMAO.

He made a mistake, he should have looked up how words are pronounced before trying to get people to mispronounce “gif”.

Pronunciation isn’t based on spelling, it’s the other way around. Writing is a tool made to accomodate language, and said writing isn’t a pronunciation guide. You’re lobotomized if you think otherwise, especially in English. But regardless, see below.

If he’d said it was supposed to be pronounced “dug” people would have just ignored him, but his attempt wasn’t that absurd, it was just slightly wrong, so not everyone ignored him the way they should have.

But he didn’t pronounce it like “dug”. He pronounced it consistently with another common 3-letter word “gin”. Is “gin” wrong now? You can cope with being wrong all you want, but it doesn’t make you less wrong.

It really sounds like you didn’t have friends. The rest of us did.

Yeah no that writing reads like a fake Reddit story, I refuse to believe even the dumbest teenagers would act like that.

Of course it does. How you pronounce things depends on the language you use. How people pronounce the letters “gif” is based on their language. In English, it’s a hard g.

The English writing system isn’t the English language, and the English writing system isn’t consistent enough to make estimations for a pronunciation like that. The only two words in the language that contain “gif” are “gift” and “fungiform”, plus derivatives of course, the latter of which is generally, by standard, pronounced with a /dʒ/ sound. If you think that’s enough basis to go off of to make rules for every other word containing “gif”, and then insist that your pronunciation is “correct”, that’s a you problem.

The same goes for any language – German has mostly-consistent generalized spelling conventions for the language that approximate pronunciation, but a LOT of common words break this convention, including “guken”, “orange”, the ending “-ig”, “toilette”, “vase”, etc. which are pronounced differently than their spelling would lead you to believe. In fact it is most common for Fremdwörter & Lehnwörter to not be spelled typically. Is every German speaker pronouncing those words wrong now? What about Italian languages, which often do the same thing but significantly more? You can look at less and less standardized languages that contain more and more irregularities, until you get to a language like English and see that the “irregularities” in the writing system completely outweigh any actual “regularities” you see and it becomes completely pointless to try to enforce a pronunciation based on a certain spelling. It’s why people learning a language like English or Tibetan or even Danish will have often cite the spelling as an extreme pain point (I can corroborate the first based on my experience teaching ESL), it is an inconsistent orthography where the spelling is almost entirely dependent on the etymology or something else, rather than any current pronunciation.

It’s also convenient how you left out the entire part about the dictionaries. Almost as if that was a silver bullet for your flawed argument and you can’t acknowledge it because it would make you look too crazy. Because the people who are the most looked up on for “correct” language by most English speakers say you’re wrong. Hmmm.

When you consider that a large number of words in English which are spelled the same have different pronunciations or are pronounced wildly phonemically differently by different speakers or in different dialects, like “minute”, “combat”, “perfect”, “read”, “bass”, “close”, “agape”, “object”, “sewer”, “wind”, “wound”… “apricot”, “leisure”, “often”, “crayon”, “either”, “been”, “caramel”, “garage”, “yogurt”… your argument about pronunciation based on “spelling rules” falls apart pretty quickly.

Present your argument on how English works to any linguists or even anyone who has basic knowledge of linguistics and you’ll be laughed out of the room.

That is the most anti-linguistic take ever lmao. There is no such thing as an objectively correct pronunciation, both pronunciations of “gif” are valid in the context of most English conversations.

On another note, the guy who created it said it’s pronounced /dʒɪf/, so if any pronunciation is more “correct” it’s the one you hate. It’s not “some people tried to claim”, that’s what it actually is “correctly” pronounced like according to the only one that can come close to being considered an authority on what the correct pronunciation is.

Your comment being so pretentious and stuck-up about you not liking a pronunciation leads me to believe you’re making the whole “we” thing up, and instead of a group of people being dumbasses and laughing at a correct pronunciation, it was just one person (you) malding about it in their head. Because being the kind of person to actually laugh at something like that in real life, face to face, would be too embarrassing for anyone to actually go through with it. God even just reading your comment makes me feel like I’m looking at made-up Reddit stories again…

Also how people speaking other languages handle names doesn’t have anything to do with this, there’s a big difference between calling someone “wrong” for pronouncing a loanword differently than in the parent language because of the languages’ phonetics & phonotactics not aligning with each other, and insisting that everyone else is “wrong” because their completely linguistically valid, common pronunciation challenges your understanding of the language.

Oxford uses /dʒɪf/ as the primary pronunciation with /gif/ as the secondary in most of their resources (although a lot don’t specify a primary or secondary), Dictionary.com lists /dʒɪf/ as the primary pronunciation, some like Merriam-Webster list both equally, Cambridge less consistent but list both. Clearly the people who’s job is language disagree with you, even if you don’t want to ask for linguists to tell you, they literally make the language references you use. If you want to be stubborn and insist on being wrong, so be it.

You can now continue malding about the fact that you use the incorrect pronunciation for the rest of your life, since apparently that’s how you see language.

giant, gigantic, ginger, gist, gin, giraffe, gibberish, gingivitis, giblet, giro, giron, gingal, gipsy / gitano, gingili, gigot, girasole, giaour, …

logic, tragic, agile, agism/aging, legit, sigil, magi, magic, argil, algid, aegis, vagile, algin, digit, legible, legislature, surgical, intellegible, …

looks like a lot of palatal affricates to me dawg idk, i think you’re the one doing mental gymnastics trying to justify it not being pronounced the way the creator specified. “gif” the way you ask for just sounds weird

The entire “your ADHD is a superpower” rhetoric is extremely harmful to people who have ADHD and generally leads to the struggles of ADHD not being taken seriously. I don’t have a “gift” or a “superpower”, I have a disability…

ADHD has many, MANY objectively bad things about it, and extremely few “good” things. I’d say the only thing that’s positive that comes out of my ADHD is that I have a lot of interests, but even that is a problem in and of itself because it makes me divide my attention between many different things and never complete any of them… ADHD comes with a ton of executive dysfunction and self-regulation problems that tend to fuck you up a lot in life.

The hyperfocus is hardly a benefit considering it generally causes you to waste a ton of time on things that shouldn’t get that much time, and even not considering that I’d say any benefit of hyperfocus is heavily outweighed by just being able to do anything at any time without having to constantly fight yourself over it, since you’d get so much more done. I find that people with both a good amount of Autism and some ADHD do a lot better than people who just have ADHD when it comes to these things, because the ASD can take actual advantage of the hyperfocus, but that’s something a lot of people with ADHD do NOT have…

Also if someone was never born, they wouldn’t know nor care that they weren’t born since they never existed. There’s literally 0 downside to not being born. Any sort of idea that you’d hate to not have been born or that you would prefer to be born than not to be is a purely irrational thought considering that.

And yes, there are people with ASD and ADHD and depression and whatever that live lives that they like. That’s not the point. The point is that the disorders do cause an objective amount of suffering that is higher than those without, especially in this society, and in many cases the suffering causes a lot of harm to the person, so intentionally taking a high chance of that happening to your kid is immoral. I don’t want to intentionally harm my kid, you shouldn’t either.

Btw, it’s not a “slightly higher risk” you are giving your kid like 9x the odds of having ASD if you yourself have ASD. And if you have ADHD you are almost guaranteeing that your kid also has ADHD.

But one of your points… why should someone who can’t afford a child have a child? It’s pretty valid to say that if my current position makes it so my kids would suffer a lot (which, in a corporatist society especially in the US, being very poor unfortunately generally causes immense pains in life) that it’d be immoral for me to create kids and then inflict that same issue upon them without them even being able to consent to it.

I can’t afford to continue college, and I can’t get a scholarship or anything to help – my ADHD was the main factor in me doing poorly in school even though I made A’s on almost every assignment/test given to me (I just didn’t do most of the assignments). I can’t afford housing. I had a seizure just randomly a few weeks ago and now I have USD$80K in medical bills (I can get that reduced a bit, but no way I can pay it off).

I am poor. There is 0 chance that I’m forcing all this stuff on a child, including the ADHD part. No doubt I would at least do good at getting treatment and helping the child with their ADHD completely unlike my parents did (I wasn’t diagnosed until 19 even though it was very obvious I had ADHD and my teachers even told them I probably have ADHD), but especially my flavour of ADHD is clearly not something that I want to pass down to kids in this society. And I’m pretty sick of people treating mental disorders like they’re somehow not nearly as serious as physical/physiological disorders.

If we lived in a socialist society where everyone is treated perfectly like they should be treated, then sure – having a disability wouldn’t be so bad. Even in that case I’d still find it immoral if I made kids that would have as equally terrible of a time just trying to enjoy their own hobbies and work as me. It’s like the biggest fun and life and it feels it’s been ripped out of my hands, I don’t want my kids to deal with that.

And once again, there are still plenty of unadopted kids out there who would otherwise be suffering if they weren’t adopted. I think just having kids at all rather than adopting when that’s the case is immoral, irregardless of if you’re disabled or not.

Also I see a big difference in the cancer part and Autism/ADHD/bipolar/etc. since if your parent or parents have, for example ADHD, it’s almost certain that it will be passed down (like 90-99% chance). That kind of chance of passing down is definitely not the case when it comes to cancer. Like 60% (or more) of people get cancer in their lifetimes anyways so it’s pretty likely you’ll get cancer regardless.

Also cancer is something that can be taken out (if not found late), neurodivergence is not. And cancer doesn’t affect you your whole life, while mental disorders do.

Lmao everything you say is clearly purely out of hatred. Why do you value the life of a dog so much less than the life of a human to call them “genetic mistakes”?

And who said that you and your friends shouldn’t exist? Certainly not me. You’re likening “maybe it’s a bad idea to knowingly create someone with a disability with a high likelihood of fucking someone over in life” to “i wish you and all your friends were dead and didn’t exist”.

It’s actually pretty offensive to imply to the large portion of people who have their lives negatively affected by ADHD and ASD that it’s not all that bad and they should suck it up and stop wishing they didn’t have it. Clearly a lot of people in this thread disagree with you, those who have mental disorders including ASD.

Just because you were lucky and don’t suffer much or even at all, means that it’s fine that many (and in my experience most) other people affected by the disorder suffer? That’s extremely selfish.

It is not describing eugenics. You are just saying emotionally charged words to try to make whatever you disagree with look worse. I could call what you believe in “sadism” and it’d have the same validity.

I believe it’s bad to intentionally give a child bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, mood disorders, personality disorders, etc. because those can all cause extreme pain even if it doesn’t seem like a problem when you’re younger. I’m sure you’d agree that it’s immoral to willingly afflict someone with that. But you draw the line at neurodevelopmental disorders for some reason?

Remind me when we’re not going to be in a system which refuses to treat disabled people properly? We live in a world built against disabled people. That is NOT going to change soon. We are corporatist and in most of the first world the right-wing is on the rise. Look at Italy, look at most of western Europe actually. Look how much attention people like DeSantis got before blowing it, and how popular it is to hate on groups like disabled more than it has ever been in recent years – shit it only getting worse. Why bring an innocent kid into that?

Besides, neurodevolopmental disorders in many people can objectively just inflict suffering completely detached from the “system”. I’ve seen them firsthand with both myself and friends with ASD. Especially socially. Obviously won’t apply to every mentally disabled person, but it’s extremely high likelihood – I meet almost entirely people with ASD and/or ADHD who feel extremely lonely and can’t find comfort socially.

Even with treatment ADHD fucks me and many others over in ways completely unrelated to the system. Friends with ASD describe it similarly, especially when ASD doesn’t have as many options in terms of treatment compared to ADHD. When it comes to ADHD, I can’t enjoy myself with hobbies or the satisfaction of my productivity as a person without such a disorder can, I can’t find happiness in my own hobbies if I can’t do them, and I spend many days being upset that I can’t make myself do the stuff I want to do even if I have medication. I can say with confidence I would 100% be happier if I was born in the same circumstances but without ADHD. And this is an extremely common sentiment for neurodevelopmental disorders, you can see it all over the thread.

I don’t have ASD but I have ADHD, and based on my experience I think it’s extremely fair to see knowingly inflicting upon another living being a disability that causes great pain and suffering throughout their entire life, as fucked up and immoral

It’s like pugs and pitbulls, many people can agree in the thought “why are we intentionally creating more canines with terrible disabilities which badly hurt them for the rest of their life?”, so why is it so bad when the same logic is applied to humans?

I think it’s dumb to describe it as “eugenics”, considering that’s a term almost entirely associated in the modern day with Nazism, forced imprisonment/torture/forced sterilization of certain groups, and racist beliefs. Wheras this seems concerned with wanting people to not suffer nearly as much after they’re born, so they’re expressing how they’re upset that people chose to create a new life with more suffering than average when there’s tons of equally good alternatives, and I think that’s pretty different than flat out promoting genocide…

What’s wrong with adoption anyways? It’s pretty selfish to bring a new life into this world for your own personal satisfaction when you could literally just take a child who’s already out there suffering and make them not suffer for no extra loss.

I find it stupid that they describe it as “ruined lives” though. Especially for the parents, like wtf just be a good parent? It’s not like most parents have a kid with no difficult challenges to face whatsoever. When you become a parent you sign up to being exposed to any and every possibility that could come from a kid. If you become a parent and then go “woe is me, I didn’t expect autism so I can’t deal with this, don’t blame me for not parenting correctly” then you shouldn’t have become a parent. The only way parents can “ruin” their own lives is if they’re a shitty parent, which unfortunately a majority of people are…